Shu v.
Dee (April 23, 2014)
Petitioners filed a complaint before the NBI which the
filed a claim against the respondents for the crime of
forgery and falsification of public documents. They
claimed that the respondents, as employees of
Quick Metrobank falsified their signatures for two deeds of
summary of real estate mortgage. Respondents argued that they
the case were denied due process when NBI didn’t require
them to submit the standard sample signatures for
comparison. SC held that NBI does not have judicial
nor quasi-judicial powers and that a chance to be
heard is given through a motion for reconsideration.
Topic Defendant must be given an Opportunity to be heard
The petitioner filed a complaint before NBI against
the respondents for falsification of 2 deeds of real
estate morgage- one that is allegedly signed by the
petitioner in his own name and the other on behalf of
3A Apparel Corp.
Respondents Dee and So signed the deed as
Background of witnesses, Miranda notarized the deed signed by Shu
the case in his own name, while Magpantay notarized the
deed on behalf of the corporation. Based on the
deeds, Metrobank foreclosed the properties that
secured their loan. Upon investigation, NBI filed a
complaint with the city prosecutor because the
signature on the deeds are not the same with the
standard sample signatures submitted to the NBI.
Respondents claimed that they were denied due
process during the NBI investigation because they
were not required, together with Metrobank to submit
their own standard sample signatures for
comparison.
The city prosecutor dismissed the complaint stating
that the documents are not conclusive evidences that
the respondents committed the crime. They further
added that the signatures are striking enough to see it
was written by the same person. The case was
forwarded to the Secretary of Justice which reversed
the ruling of the prosecutor and denied the
respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
The case is further forwarded to the CA that again
annulled the SOJ’s ruling. They agreed that the
respondents were denied due process because they
were not furnished a copy of the complaint.
The CA erred in relying with the respondent’s
allegation that they had been denied due process
Petitioner’s
despite the fact that they were actively participating in
Argument
the proceedings through the filing of motion for
reconsideration
They were prevented from participating in the
Respondent’s
proceedings before the NBI and SOJ resulting in their
Argument
denial of due process
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that
Issue/s
respondent was denied due process
 YES. The respondents were not denied due process.
The essence of due process is simply the opportunity
to be heard. What the law prohibits is not the absence
of previous notice but its absolute absence and lack
of opportunity to be heard. Sufficient compliance with
the requirements of due process exists when a party
is given a chance to be heard through his motion for
reconsideration. In this case, the respondents filed to
the SOJ their own motion for reconsideration.
Therefore, any initial defect in due process, if any,
was cured by the remedy the respondents availed of.
Additionally, NBI is an investigative agency whose
Ruling
findings are merely recommendatory. There is no
denial of respondent’s due process since NBI’s
findings is merely recommendatory; its findings are
still subject to the prosecutor’s and the SOJ’s actions
for purposes of finding the existence of probable
cause.

Notably, there was no categorical finding in the

documents that showed the respondents indeed
falsified the documents.

The CA’s decision is therefore reversed and set

aside.